Right. You've been doing a bit of editing and goalpost moving, but i'll have a go:
The concept of political correctness is deceivingly referred to as it is simply the nice way to say things without offending anyone when, in fact, it is denial of non-Marxist thought.
Marxism is about giving control of the means of production to the workers - and not too much else (the rest is just after effects of this). It certainly doesn't give a list of dogmas which modern political correctness reflects. These ideas may come from the left wing generally, but as much from the liberal centre left as anyone (which has at least had some actual power in the west - under FDR JFK and LBJ).
What if only nazi or Islamic ideology was considered "politically correct"?
That's just relativism. If it was people wouldn't have it - it's sort of easy to tell that nazi ideology is not 'nice' (unless you actually think jews aren't human, but even then - it's all a bit fighty); ditto with the more idiotic islamic ideologies (though islam can be good/wise too) - fanatical islam is never popular in islamic countries (see ISIS - the vast majority don't want it). Political correctness reflects a principle of looking out for oppressed minorities to counteract bigotry and xenophobia. Granted in the hands of the state, this origin is not that prevalent, and the ideas can be used oppressively (like anything in the hands of a state) - this doesn't take away from the ethical origins of the ideas.
You also skipped over the reprucussions of cultural Marxism I described in my post. How do you account for those results? Did you read it fully? If you think I am wrong then how exactly? You keep referring to it all from a distant theoretical point of view while ignoring the real world effects of said policies. Do you just write it all off as right-wing ranting so you don't have to come up with a response to it?
It is ivory tower shit again. The tower is 200 hundred stories tall and you are on the 100th floor. Too high to get a focus on the people living on the ground, too low to get a realistic idea of what is really behind it all.
Well i used to live in a tower for a while, but it wasn't made of ivory (more like concrete and despair). I've never been to university, but do read a lot. I'm very much aware of the effects of the politics of the west in my own personal experience (of being shit-poor) - to me they are best explained by the neoliberalism i described above.
What you call repercussions of cultural marxism (immigration and the birth rate falling) i don't think are anything to do with it. I explained what i think on neoliberalism and immigration above, but here's some more:
We in the west (i assume you're in the 'west') still have a massive economic advantage due to inventing ships and cannons before everyone else and going and pinching wealth from the rest of the world (this was just luck and circumstance and not because we're 'better' than anyone else). Eg the UK's industrial revolution in textile manufacturing was partly based on taking over Bengal's rich, world famous luxury finished textile industry and making them just produce raw materials to be sent over to UK (oop north) to give us our 'economic miracle'. The same with the USA - genociding and betraying our way through the indians to pinch their land to shove black people on (which the founding fathers carried on) - that wealth was stolen. We owe the rest of the world a massive amount - and we still use our power to exploit the third world, taking their resources for a fraction of what they're worth (coltan in nigeria?), and invading them if they won't accept the shit price (or using debt slavery via the imf). The free market isn't free - it tends towards monopoly (the rich get richer - see Piketty) - this also happens on an international level. This stuff is capitalism/imperialism in action - marxism and socialism is being against this monstrous machine.
When economic migration happens it's because of the unjust distribution of wealth in the world - nearly all people would rather stay in the country they started in if they could. It woudn't even take much sharing out to alleviate this problem - the wealth gap is so pronounced that just a small amount of the west's money would mean most migrants stayed at home. Eg someone calculated that to feed the world's hungry would cost 30 billion dollars (which is nothing in a western countries budget - eg uk's budget is 2000 billion pounds (i also saw a website once that showed that the wasted food from america was more than the world's hungry required)). And we don't even need to give them anything - just give them a fair price for their resources and allow them to have democracy without interfering with coups/psyops would probably do the trick.
And the idea that western countries are penniless and can't afford any more welfare or immigrants - you've been sold a lie (it's a pretty successful lie); austerity is a choice by the elites; it's a wealth extraction process - while we've had austerity, the top wealthy have seen their wealth increase since the credit crunch (that's our money!). The debt is bollocks - it's odious debt and doesn't need to be paid - nationalise the banks (iceland's doing alright); public spending is exactly what we should be doing now to create demand in the economy (you do the cutting in the boom bit) - this is basic economics (and still capitalism).
It's the elites (the people who own everything) that are responsible for the shit that goes on in the world, not the left (the left has no actual power anywhere, except maybe cuba venezuala and ecuador). In history, the good things we have in the west (democracy justice and equality) have come from a long struggle by little people fighting for justice against the economic elite. They only give us these things grudgingly when they have no choice (eg killing us won't work anymore). These elite bastards have absolute contempt for democracy, unless they can buy it. If you agree there is an elite and they act in their own interest and this isn't the same as the rest of us' interest, then you should feel worried if your views are what they'd want you to think (i think the same way about climate change in relation to oil corporations).
Birth rates fall in any country where female rights gain ground, as women get a choice if they want a baby or not, rather than being a submissive obedient baby maker who should be shagged and not heard. This is about the world's only chance of surviving the expanding population - the more we spread feminism around the world, the better chance we have. So, send a few crumbs from our table so people can stay in the country they love, and gently encourage feminism by example, so that women get their rightful control over the reproductive process is my feeling.
As for living standards, you really are blaming the wrong people (imo) - living standards went up in the post war period (40s-60s) under social democracy in us and uk for the longest sustained period ever; however, all these wages rising steadily obviously didn't give as good profits to the owners (they still had profits, just not enough for them). So the elite encouraged the creation of neoliberal ideology to counteract this trend (along with the help of the (some say deliberate) oil crisis) - the resulting economic orthodoxy that's still with us is the period when wages have stagnated while productivity has gone up. Late 70s to now, wages in the us have plateaued, but productivity (and so corporate profit) has continued to rise - this is more suitable to the elite (they only gave us social democracy in the first place cos there was a real chance of sociialism or revolution after the war, they've just taken it back now and only applied it to banks - and this was accompanied by a long propaganda program which has made welfare and public spending a dirty word).
To see how the elite has fought against left wing ideas by infiltrating the media and the left wing itself and spreading propaganda, look at operation mockingbird (particularly in europe); also look at Gladio - real left wing ideas have had no chance in my country due to the influence of the elite, whether through subversion, or just owning nearly all the media.
society becomes so shitty from the influence of corporations that a fantasy revolution will happen.
I don't know if you're trying to say that corporate power is the fault of cultural marxists here... Are you agreeing that corporations are shitty? (why aren't you socialist then?
)
Instead of forcing everyone to be economically equal, people are tricked into treating all cultures and identities as equal, which inevitably leads to the denial of the (economic/technological /intellectual) superiority of those who are most successful, who should be serving as models.
So the people who are technologically and economically superior should be role models? What like america? Not much of a role model actually - they basically run most of the world as an empire in their own interests, and fuck the local inhabitants. I don't believe in might-is-right i belive in equality and justice - i don't need to be tricked. All people are equal (equality), and deserve an equal chance of fair treatment according to their actions (justice) - this is socialism (and common sense); it doesn't require you to equate a hippy with an axe murderer (or a western secular person with a jihadi) (not saying you did - reductio ad absurdiam).
And as for intellectual, all people have the same brain - who's got the more brainpower - a british person who's read a few books, and can look up stuff on google, or an aboriginal australian who can survive indefinitely on his own wits in a near desert (and has a mind full of dreamtime)? Ask the british person to make a fire and sort out dinner for a week in the desert (and don't let him have a smartphone).
....
I've waffled on again - i enjoy debating with you, but it's getting a bit long now (i know it's my fault) - perhaps we should try and break it down into smaller points and do them one by one? (not trying to avoid your long answer - i'll start after the next one
- is it worth breaking it into a new thread too? (we haven't mentioned guns for a while)
But just in case:
). I didn't look up the youtube vids you suggested (yet - i will (busy schedule atm) - maybe this weekend) - and apologies for any delusions i have about you, they weren't malicious or intentional. But did you listen to the radio programme i linked about continental vs analytical philosophy yet? What did you think? (it is relevant) - and if you didn't should i call you lazy and ignorant (or a fucking retard)? (i won't because what would be the point?)
